Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge its passage, and I do so for a reason that I believe does tie fairly into another piece of legislation. This is a piece of bipartisan legislation with Chairman Conyers. Another piece tries to deal with a greater inequity than even this one. While Internet broadcasters or podcasters or Webcasters pay as much as half of their revenues, half of their gross revenues if they play performances of music, and NAB was cited as being a participant, let me make something very clear, Mr. Speaker. The National Association of Broadcasters has chosen to have an absolute ``burn the bridge'' attitude toward terrestrial broadcasters paying even a cent. I join with Chairman Conyers, Mr. Berman, myself, and many others, in urging that this pattern of lowering to what we believe is a more fair rate or helping lower to what we believe is a more fair rate, in fact, flies in the face of terrestrial broadcasters continuing to say that the only fair amount to pay in the way of royalties to the music producers, the actual performers, is zero. The public today, Mr. Speaker, when they hear this, if they hear this, will be shocked to find out that when they listen to terrestrial radio, nothing is paid to the artist. Well, if they listen to Internet radio, actually more than half in some cases of the gross revenues of these Internet broadcasters is paid to the performers. As Mr. Inslee said, I do believe that perhaps it is too much; that there is, in fact, a point at which, when you tax something too much, even if it's taxed to pay the performance, you may get too little of it. To that extent, we need to find an amount that balances fairly compensation for the creative artist who brought us this fine music and those who would seek to make it available to the public. I hope that this piece of legislation will help for those doing business on the Internet and that H.R. 2344 will be quickly adopted and that it will lead to more affordable rates for the Internet. But I cannot, in good conscience, fail to mention that these companies trying to start and promote a new industry and a service in many places in which terrestrial broadcasts may be poor or not available at all find themselves hampered while they pay half of their revenues out in royalties, competing against terrestrial broadcasters who insist on continuing to pay not a penny. So, Mr. Speaker, I will look for this legislation to become law. I look for the other legislation behind it to be brought to the floor, fairly considered, and voted on in order to bring performance fairness. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume for our response to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Excellent. I will be brief. This is noncontroversial. In fact, the Antitrust Criminal Enhancement Reform Act of 2009 is about a program that is working. It is a program that not only do I hope we will unanimously pass and send to the Senate, but that the Senate will act quickly so that after the 2 weeks remaining, this statute will not expire, and we will use this year wisely to review and reauthorize in a longer term basis this act. ACPERA has in fact worked. It is something that both the majority and minority have agreed on, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any further speakers after I conclude?

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield back the balance of my time and support the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the precious time on the floor needs to be well spent, and we certainly support that we are well spending it. This is an important piece of legislation. It's important because, in fact, we in the Federal Government need to team with cities and localities around the country to ensure that we not distort where prosecutions are made. I fully support this legislation because, with all due respect to my colleague, it will relieve the cities and the counties from often choosing a Federal venue rather than a local venue if we help with protecting their witnesses, something that the Federal Government and the U.S. Marshals have proven to do very well. So I do support the bill. It's a bipartisan bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2009. Witness testimony is a critical component of our criminal justice system. Even with sophisticated DNA and other forensic evidence, there is no substitute for an eyewitness testimony. However, engaging the cooperation of witnesses is frequently a daunting obstacle in many criminal prosecutions. Many witnesses fail to come forward or refuse to testify out of fear of retribution by the defendants or pressure by the community. It is no surprise that violent criminals will unleash their brutality on witnesses whose testimony could result in years or decades in prison. It is also no surprise that violent gangs and drug organizations are the source of much of this brutality. The Justice Department's National Gang Center reports that ``gang members so frequently engage in witness intimidation that it is considered part of normal gang behavioral dynamics.'' State and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are in a constant struggle to counteract witness intimidation and to convince witnesses to cooperate. It's vital that we assist in this. At the Federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service is charged with witness protection and has operated the Witness Security Program since 1970. Under the program, more than 7,500 witnesses and over 9,500 family members have been protected, relocated, or given new identities. Most States and local governments cannot offer that level of protection. Many cannot afford to offer even basic protection services, for instance, during a trial in which the proceedings in a small town might be all too evident to gangs in the area. H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act, directs the Attorney General to award grants to State and local governments to establish and maintain witness protection programs. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this not only is a well-worthwhile program whose time has come, but, in fact, it could be a real cost- saving to the taxpayers from the Federal level. Federal prosecution tends to be more expensive. In the case of gang, drug, and other activities, there is almost always a dual nexus: one in which the State or local courts can try the gang members, one in which the Federal Government can find Federal statutes to try under. Unfortunately, without an effective witness protection program, localities may often choose to move a case to Federal court where witness protection is available rather than providing that protection themselves. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support strongly that we find those opportunities in which local government can provide this service rather than removing to Federal court. This is a cost-saving, commonsense initiative, and I support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I'm declining on this bill. I will pick up on the next one. Thank you.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I would yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would ensure that nearly 14 million Americans who have lost their jobs will not see an additional 1, 2 or $4 billion of the new benefits paid to Federal workers unless this Congress is able to get its house in order. Under the motion to recommit, we recognize that according to the Office of Management and Budget the deficit is currently approximately $1.841 trillion. The motion will very simply tie the enactment of this new and expensive and overly generous benefit to the national debt. The motion dictates that if the deficit for any fiscal year exceeds $500 billion, the act will then terminate on the 30th day of the next fiscal year. Madam Speaker, in a commonsense way, it means we can have this expensive--we object to it--but this expensive new benefit go into effect this year, but if this House and this Congress cannot get its house in order in the following years, then this act would not continue. We believe that this is the last and best effort to try to reach a compromise to allow the majority to have its way on this expensive, new benefit but not allow it to continue on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans, until or unless we're able to bring the deficit at least in line with where it was just two short years ago. Madam Speaker, in closing I believe that the majority in this case has ignored one after another commonsense opportunities to amend this bill. In committee, we were shut out; here on the floor, each of our amendments, including one that would have simply allowed for every Federal worker to have 12 weeks of paid medical leave in the case of the birth, adoption or taking on of a foster child, but to do so with existing benefits, including sick leave, even allowing them to borrow sick leave. Since that's been rejected, our motion to recommit seeks only to recognize that this new benefit on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans and countless millions who are making much less this year than last year cannot be sustained if we cannot bring our fiscal house in order. And with that, I would urge passage of the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, briefly, this amendment seems to be a good one that would try to clarify some of the many, many, many, many elements of this bill that were not worked through thoroughly in committee, so I applaud the gentleman. I believe that, in fact, if we would have done more of this in committee, if more people would have looked and said, We want, as the committee that is charged by the Congress to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, that, in fact, if we had tightened up this bill much better earlier, we would have been more accountable to the taxpayers. So I applaud the gentleman and recommend that this be voted positively. I yield back all time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, although we do not object to this, we claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, because there is no objection to this commonsense evaluation as to the low-income and economically disadvantaged, we claim in opposition and then yield back immediately.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remaining time. Madam Chair, I just want to review one more time why we believe that doing this within the existing means of the program dollars that are already available to the Federal workforce is a commonsense compromise. Meeting the majority halfway, recognizing that 14 million Americans are making no money, except for their unemployment insurance, and those who are making so much less this year demand that we find ways not to increase our spending. So, Madam Chair, I would just like to review one last time. The Federal workforce, if you've been in for only 3 years, you have 4 weeks of paid vacation and 13 days, which is nearly 3 weeks, of sick leave per year. You already have that every year. Isn't it family values to be willing to give up some of that to be able to stay with your family? Why wouldn't you use some of that first? Madam Chair, I want to recognize that the Federal workforce is a good workforce, and we want it to be a great workforce. But at a time in which 14 million Americans are looking for jobs, we are actually not having a hard time finding people who would like to come to work for the Federal Government. We're offering jobs. We're hiring. We're growing. So if we're ever going to need an inducement, it will be at a boom time, at a time in which we have to compete against higher salaries and bonuses, not at a time in which Americans are suffering and being laid off in record numbers. Lastly, Madam Chair, I would like to refer to the President's statement, which was quite a weak statement, in support of this bill. He recites the bill and then says, ``The administration is currently reviewing existing Federal leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and limitations. The administration looks forward to working with Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make sure it meets the needs of the Federal agencies and employees, as well as their families.'' Madam Chair, what that says to me is, this is not the right bill. They'd like to work with us to make it better. Hopefully this amendment will make it better here today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. My amendment to H.R. 626 is a commonsense amendment. I believe the legislation bridges the differences between the majority and the minority, recognizing that the Federal workforce should, in fact, be able to use accrued and earned time they have, recognizing that it is already the policy of many, but not all, Federal agencies to allow all accrued leave, both vacation, if you will, and sick leave, to be used by somebody wishing to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family medical leave. Having said that, we do take away the question of 4 weeks of additional paid or 8 weeks of additional paid leave. We recognize, though, that not every person, particularly a young family new to the Federal workforce, may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full weeks. Therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an advance against future sick leave and other leave in order to ensure that they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allowed within the law. This would, in fact, eliminate the contradiction between various government agencies. It would streamline the process. It would make clear that no Federal worker would ever have to choose between being with their newborn and receiving a paycheck. So with that, I urge the strong support of this amendment as a commonsense middle ground. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. ISSA. Beyond the 12 weeks?

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, in a few short minutes we will complete general debate; we will go to amendments. At that time, I'm hopeful that the amendment offered by the committee, the Republicans on this committee, will be considered favorably. If it is, then what seems to be unreconcilable as our differences can be resolved. Clearly, we agree that 14 million Americans are out of work. We agree that we're in a recession. We agree that Americans are suffering. We agree that whether you're having a child, adopting a child, or bringing a foster child in need into your home, that that bonding time is worthwhile now, just as it was in 1993 when we overrode all States and all employers to provide that option without fear of retaliation or loss of a job. I think we agree that this bill is 12 weeks, 8 of which may be paid by the use of sick and other leave. I know we agreed that if you serve 15 years in the government you'll have about 8 weeks a year of paid leave already accrued. We only disagree on whether or not a new cost, a new entitlement will be borne by the American people. We seem to disagree on whether going from not paying somebody when they're off to paying them is, in fact, a cost to the government. We certainly disagree on whether or not when it becomes an additional 4 weeks of pay, many will choose to take it. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, when the CBO scored, they made the assumption that half of all men would not take any benefits under the Parental Leave Act as they currently don't. But, of course, when you're offered 4 weeks free, completely free of sick leave, perhaps it will be irresistible to take some, in which case the $1 billion over 5 years could rise above that figure. So there are some things we disagree on. But if we take what we agree on, which is the American people are watching mounting deficits, the American people do believe that at times we're out of touch, that we don't feel their pain. The gentleman from Virginia talked about the Federal workers in his district. The Federal workers have grown in his district at a time in which the gentleman from Illinois has seen 40,000 workers lose their job at Caterpillar. Those were good-paying jobs. They had benefits. They may have even had some parental leave benefits. Today, they have no benefits. They're not choosing between having a paycheck or being with their child; they're choosing whether or not to go out and find some minimum-wage job or do something to try to bring a little money into the house, because in fact, they no longer have the good-paying jobs that have evaporated in this recession. We did a stimulus package, and we disagreed on a lot of how it was done, but we understood we needed to get Americans rolling again, we needed to get them the opportunities. What those 14 million have given up--and countless millions more have given up in loss of some of their income--is what we disagree about. So, Madam Chair, I would ask that the CBO document scoring this be placed in the Record so there is no question as to what we all agree on, the NFIB letter opposing this, and the letter from the Independent Electrical Contractors also be placed in the Record at this time. H.R. 626 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced recruitment and retention of employees. Under current law, federal employees who have completed at least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67 million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010- 2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or receipts. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget functions (except functions 900 and 950). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--